Either getting Pre Crisis or Post Crisis settled is the key to fixing Superman.

[The World]

I think probably the reason Post-Crisis and Pre-Crisis don't mix as well as people would hope is because there are at least some ideological differences between the eras and the fans of those eras. You see the same discussion that surround particular topics and they all are usually focused on identity, heritage, or power. Human or Alien, dead parents or living parents, Clark or Superman, Outsider or well adjusted, whats the nature of his relationship with Batman, marriage or no, hows his work life, what was his childhood, etc. You don't see too much on which version of Metallo should be in play, Lex seems to have naturally settled into a mix of mad scientist and businessman, no one really cares one way or another about Keith White, or whats going on with Jim Harper these days. Many of things in the second list tend to just sort themselves out because they either change to fit the times or are forgotten.

The question of Pre-Crisis vs Post-Crisis is a question of the person that is called Superman. Who is he? For Post-Crisis I think the idea is that they shifted him as close to the general agreed upon view of "normal" as possible; normal childhood, powers held back for as long as possible, normal work life, human heritage is preeminent in his life, normal wife, etc. For Pre-Crisis Superman normal is relative. Post-Crisis was probably more relateable but Pre-Crisis feels more unique and in this day and age probably a lot more relevant. Then you've got the powe rlevel questions which again Post-Crisis shoots lower for the hope of relateability while Pre-Crisis didn't really bother with limits and his power just went up and up and up. Again Post-Crisis probably is more relateable, but Pre-Crisis feels more relevant given the Rusos were just bragging about Captain Marvel being the most powerful Avenger and whatnot. There are just plain ideological differences that are hard to rectify with each other; people say the Kent, Lois, and having a regular 9-5 keeps him grounded and interested in protecting the Earth but that doesn't align with Pre-Crisis Superman sensibilities who told Kara in one story that he fought crime on Earth because he loved it.

Pre-Crisis Superman and Post-Crisis Superman are kind of different in the way Barry Allen and Wally West or the Green Lanterns are different and I think are fanbase is closer to theirs than it is to Wonder Woman or Batman who also went through COIE but are more or less seen as one whole unit though time rather than several different characters that share lore and names.

The stuff that associated with each era imo is less important because that stuff just sorts itself out. Initially Krypto got the boot after COIE because they thought a flying dog was silly but after a while they declinched and realized it wasn't anymore silly than a flying man. Like wise Superman's penchant for sprouting new powers at will never returned after they were deemphasized in the "Bronze Age" because the powerset he already had was massive and pretty iconic. Stuff tends to work itself out and from what I've seen both sides acclimate pretty quickly to stuff being changed anyways it's the man at the center thats the problem.

[Jim Kelly]

I think DC deliberately divided its fanbase around 1986, although why they would do that I don't know. They might have been trying to win new readers from Marvel, but they did it in such a way that it hurt a lot of their faithful followers. And it was a crucial moment in comics collecting history.

At the time, there were all these collectors who were into getting complete runs of a comic and following their favourite characters. They had jobs now--they weren't little kids anymore--and they could afford to hunt down back issues and put together impressive collections. Yet DC was saying nothing that happened with Superman before 1986 mattered--it was all on the garbage heap of history.

And DC acted like those fans didn't matter--the fans that loved DC didn't matter.

I think one of the things that hit me hardest was when they changed SECRET ORIGINS. After Crisis, Roy Thomas was still being allowed to tell stories that no longer were part of the current continuity in SO--so that made folks feel like those old stories were still valued by the current regime. But when DC put a stop to those stories, it was like the Iron Curtain of Time coming down and saying NO! none of this will matter again!

And we weren't little children to be ordered around like that. That attitude offended the old fans and made it a lot harder to invest in the new universe.

And what happened after that? The speculator boom. Instead of the comics market being about collectors who loved the comics and buying them to read them, it was about speculators buying up comics to make a profit and driving up the resale value, which pushed out the small time collectors who loved comics. And the best kind of comic that a publisher could produce to fuel the speculator market, and sell through on a single isssue, was the comic that destroyed everything or the comic that completely rebooted everything.

[bat39]

To me it's more a matter of how he views himself. Is he more like the Martian Manhunter or Spider-man?

J'onn is a Martian. He isn't a human who can shape-shift, read minds, turn invisible, … If he suddenly woke up tomorrow in a solid unalterable form unable to hear thoughts, it would be like you or I waking up blind, deaf, or paralyzed. These aren't powers for J'onn anymore than we think of speaking as a power.

Peter Parker, even if he has been Spider-man for over a decade, still thinks of climbing walls, lifting compact cars, and sensing danger as added abilities. If he woke up tomorrow as a normal guy, he'd miss his powers but wouldn't think of himself as handicapped (outside of his role as Spider-man).

To me Pre-Crisis Superman is closer to J'onn. He thought of moving a supersonic speeds the same way we think of jogging at 10 mph. It wasn't a special ability, it was just what he could do. Being under a red sun to him wasn't returning to normal, it was like being weighted down.

Post-Crisis Superman was more Peter Parker. He thought of himself as a human being with the dials turned up to 11. If he woke up tomorrow without his powers he could more easily take it in stride since outrunning a bullet wasn't "natural" no matter hiw used to it he was.

Yes, I think this is a fundamental point which gets missed a lot in these discussions.

The way I see it, Superman is definitely different from J'onn J'onzz or the Thanagarian Hawks, in that he isn't really a 'strange visitor to earth'. He's someone who has been raised from infancy on earth, and grew up with a human name and human parents. Even his mission as a superhero is to fight for justice within the context of a human society.

That said, the age and circumstances in which he discovers his Kryptonian origins of course play a major role in his perception of himself.

In the Silver Age, the idea was that he remembered his Kryptonian history and identity as a young child. So you could make a strong argument that he always self-identified as Kal-El, and 'Clark Kent' was an illusion right from the start.

But in most other versions, he lives his life as Clark Kent, gradually starts to realize he's 'different', and there's a point in his life when he learns just how different he is. But by the time he learns that he's Kal-El of Krypton, or even the simple fact that he wasn't born Clark Kent, he's already formed a pretty stable identity as Clark that's unlikely to unravel.

Let's actually go all the way back to the 40's and take the case of the Golden Age Superman. Back in the Siegal/Shuster days, Superman wasn't even aware of his Kryptonian heritage and birth name. He grew up as Clark Kent and made the decision to become Superman as Clark. Yes the 'Clark Kent' that he presented to the world was a weakling, but its not as though he thought of himself as not 'really' being Clark Kent, or human. As far as he knew, he was a human being who happened to have extraordinary powers, that he used to become the Champion of the Oppressed. Its only in Superman #61, after his first encounter with kryptonite, that he learns about his alien origins - and even in that story, its made clear that he wasn't even aware that he came to earth in a rocketship!

So are we supposed to believe that Superman, as conceived of by his creators, grew up thinking of himself as an alien and considered his 'Clark Kent' identity to be fake...when it was a good decade into his publication history (and certainly at least a few years into his Superman career in-universe) that he even learnt that he was an alien? Hardly, likely.

[DochaDocha]

So are we supposed to believe that Superman, as conceived of by his creators, grew up thinking of himself as an alien and considered his 'Clark Kent' identity to be fake...when it was a good decade into his publication history (and certainly at least a few years into his Superman career in-universe) that he even learnt that he was an alien? Hardly, likely.

To an extent, it's plausible. If you woke up every day and knew something about you was fundamentally different from everyone else around you, you might feel alienated even if you didn't know you were an alien from outer space. Couple that with hiding certain aspects of yourself from the people you interact with every day, I could believe that you might feel like an impostor of some sort, your public persona is largely fabricated, and that your own sense of identity is riddled with questions. It's possible that for most of Clark Kent's childhood and adolescence, he was not being himself.

Of course, none of us were delivered via spaceship from a distant star (we came from storks, after all...), so who's to say what's the most natural response to Clark Kent's circumstances.

[Shamrock Holmes]

Yes, I think this is a fundamental point which gets missed a lot in these discussions.

....

But in most (other) versions, he lives his life as Clark Kent, gradually starts to realize he's 'different', and there's a point in his life when he learns just how different he is. But by the time he learns that he's Kal-El of Krypton, or even the simple fact that he wasn't born Clark Kent, he's already formed a pretty stable identity as Clark that's unlikely to unravel.

Let's actually go all the way back to the 40's and take the case of the Golden Age Superman. Back in the Siegal/Shuster days, Superman wasn't even aware of his Kryptonian heritage and birth name. He grew up as Clark Kent and made the decision to become Superman as Clark. Yes the 'Clark Kent' that he presented to the world was a weakling, but its not as though he thought of himself as not 'really' being Clark Kent, or human. As far as he knew, he was a human being who happened to have extraordinary powers, that he used to become the Champion of the Oppressed. Its only in Superman #61, after his first encounter with kryptonite, that he learns about his alien origins - and even in that story, its made clear that he wasn't even aware that he came to earth in a rocketship!

So are we supposed to believe that Superman, as conceived of by his creators, grew up thinking of himself as an alien and considered his 'Clark Kent' identity to be fake...when it was a good decade into his publication history (and certainly at least a few years into his Superman career in-universe) that he even learnt that he was an alien? Hardly, likely.

Agreed.

Authorial Intent often gets a bad rep in many circles these days (Harry Potter being the main one that I consider), but I think in this case there is a clear, compelling arguement in favour of it. I've no problem with him becoming a Kryptonophile (especially if Kara is in continuity from the early days), but this should always be tempered by an investment in Earth as well.

[Jim Kelly]

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that Clark would identify as primariy Kal-El, in his given 1960s origins. Let's say he came to Earth when he was three (some stories seem to suggest he's older, but others that he's younger), even if he has memories of everything that happened on Krypton from his birth, that's still just three years worth of memories. He spends the rest of his life growing up with the Kents, associating with his friends in Smallville, flying around the Earth as Superboy. By the time he's sixteen, the ratio of Earth experiences to Krypton experiences is 13:3.

Sure, part of his psyche is Kryptonian. In Freudian terms, his Superbaby self is his id, but over that id is his super-ego, the part of the self that develops at around three and controls the impulses of the id and emerges from the lessons taught by the Kents. And then there's the ego which is the persona that he shows to the world.

For Superman to be almost completely the alien from Krypton in his psychology, he would have had to stop developing as a conscious being at the age of three. Everything that happens to him after his arrival on Earth ought to contribute to who he is. For that not to be the case would mean that Superman is something of a monster.

[bat39]

To an extent, it's plausible. If you woke up every day and knew something about you was fundamentally different from everyone else around you, you might feel alienated even if you didn't know you were an alien from outer space. Couple that with hiding certain aspects of yourself from the people you interact with every day, I could believe that you might feel like an impostor of some sort, your public persona is largely fabricated, and that your own sense of identity is riddled with questions. It's possible that for most of Clark Kent's childhood and adolescence, he was not being himself.

Of course, none of us were delivered via spaceship from a distant star (we came from storks, after all...), so who's to say what's the most natural response to Clark Kent's circumstances.

True...but it is still Clark Kent who would feel different from those around him, and be putting on an act.

In Action Comics #1, we're told that "Early, Clark decided to turn his titanic strength into channels that would benefit mankind". Note that its Clark Kent who makes the decision to become Superman.

The next few retellings also introduce the Kents and cement the idea that Clark's upbringing and the lessons from his adoptive parents are what shape his future heroism. So that's certainly another point in favor of the idea that Superman is the creation of Clark Kent, and not the other way round.

[kingaliencracker]

I don't believe the pre-Crisis or post-Crisis debate is what ails Superman today. It's an issue, yes, and it was a significant issue 15 years ago. But Superman NOW is so far removed from the post-Crisis incarnation that Byrne developed that to say it's the primary issue plaguing him would be an overstatement.

What plagues Superman currently is a lack of effort creatively to really do something different or special with the character. DC seems perfectly content for Superman to be average or even mediocre, because they know the big money they make off the character comes from outside the comic books in terms of merchandising and licensing. I mean, DC is so tepid when it comes to the comic book version of Superman that they couldn't even really follow through with the New 52 reboot and jettisoning the marriage for longer than what, a couple of years?

Say what you will about the 80's/90's version of Superman, at least DC had the guts to do some radical things with him. Nowadays it's just rinse, cycle, repeat in terms of story arcs. Most of his better rogues have been pilfered by other characters in their books, and his supporting cast is...there, I guess?

So yeah, for me this isn't a post-Crisis or pre-Crisis debate. Not anymore. DC has just done a successful job in making the character in the comic books suck.

[DochaDocha]

As a guy who's not interested in a main-continuity Super kid (but stuff like Secret Identity are great), I'd say giving him a son was a pretty bold step. I think if they committed to giving him a kid, they should've done the whole Pebbles Flinstone experience and not skip the first however many years of his life, but I can't in good conscience say that DC does nothing new with Superman and ignore that they brought in Jon. But in other media, they are sorely stuck in the three true outcomes pattern.

[The World]

True...but it is still Clark Kent who would feel different from those around him, and be putting on an act.

In Action Comics #1, we're told that "Early, Clark decided to turn his titanic strength into channels that would benefit mankind". Note that its Clark Kent who makes the decision to become Superman.

The next few retellings also introduce the Kents and cement the idea that Clark's upbringing and the lessons from his adoptive parents are what shape his future heroism. So that's certainly another point in favor of the idea that Superman is the creation of Clark Kent, and not the other way round.

Other than what the narrator tells you is there anything to say he's closer to Clark Kent than Superman? Clark Kent doesn't really have a set characterization in those days but Superman does, Clark's behavior shifts from issue to issue, moment to moment as it fits Superman's needs. Superman by comparison is always treated the same issue from issue, stalwart, tough, intelligent, etc. Clark in the early days is more a tool Superman uses to collect and disseminate information only he knows other than that Clark doesn't really do much besides pester Lois for dates and much of what anyone knows about him is a fabrication. Between the two characters which is surrounded in more falsehoods Clark or Superman in the early days. As far as I could tell Clark was.

More so I recall it was originally Siegels idea for Superman to also have had a Superboy component in his childhood which DC ended up adding to the character while he wasn't aware in the mid 40s.

[kingaliencracker]

As a guy who's not interested in a main-continuity Super kid (but stuff like Secret Identity are great), I'd say giving him a son was a pretty bold step. I think if they committed to giving him a kid, they should've done the whole Pebbles Flinstone experience and not skip the first however many years of his life, but I can't in good conscience say that DC does nothing new with Superman and ignore that they brought in Jon. But in other media, they are sorely stuck in the three true outcomes pattern.

I don't think giving him a son after several years of marriage to Lois is necessarily a bold step, especially since they were stuck with it based on them more or less bringing the pre-Flashpoint Superman back once the New 52 Superman fell off the proverbial cliff. Superman and Lois had their son in Convergence which was prior to the decision to return THAT Superman as the de facto Superman of the main continuity. And given the way they treated Jon when Bendis took over tells me they're not entirely keen on the character but don't know what else to do with him.

[DochaDocha]

Introducing Jon was a hedged bet, unlike something like his marriage which they fully committed to and made it a bit of a spectacle. But considering that he didn't have a biological, in-continuity son in the comics for most of the prior 70-something years, I think it's still somewhat significant.

[bat39]

Other than what the narrator tells you is there anything to say he's closer to Clark Kent than Superman? Clark Kent doesn't really have a set characterization in those days but Superman does, Clark's behavior shifts from issue to issue, moment to moment as it fits Superman's needs. Superman by comparison is always treated the same issue from issue, stalwart, tough, intelligent, etc. Clark in the early days is more a tool Superman uses to collect and disseminate information only he knows other than that Clark doesn't really do much besides pester Lois for dates and much of what anyone knows about him is a fabrication. Between the two characters which is surrounded in more falsehoods Clark or Superman in the early days. As far as I could tell Clark was.

More so I recall it was originally Siegels idea for Superman to also have had a Superboy component in his childhood which DC ended up adding to the character while he wasn't aware in the mid 40s.

Yes, between the 'Clark' that he presents to the world and 'Superman', Superman is the closer reflection of his true self for sure. But my point is that he grew up as Clark Kent, and it is as Clark that he takes the decision to a) become the costumed vigilante known as Superman, b) take a day job as a 'mild mannered reporter' Clark Kent.

I discussed this on another thread involving the identity question once - in Action Comics # 484, the story of the Earth Two Superman's marriage to Lois Lane, the moment the Wizard erases Clark's knowledge of his Superman identity, he immediately begins acting as his 'true self' as Clark Kent, becoming a crusading reporter and acting on his feelings for Lois. Now granted, this story was written decades after the original Siegal/Shuster stories, but its supposed to be a continuation of that early take on the character and lines up pretty well with what little we know of the earliest version of Superman's origin.

[Ascended]

That could definitely be do-able if he "found his earth" again, or something like that. Maybe he could do the space traveller thing and then find his way back home - best of both worlds?

I don't see any reason why you couldn't have Nuperman, even a Golden Age/Truth powered Nuperman, still out there doing cosmic stuff just like the regular version. No reason he can't split his time between his earth and the universe/s beyond.

Hell, half the reason I was excited for the idea of Clark being de-powered in Truth was wondering how he'd handle his usual rogues. When he's lost most of his power and his access to the Fortress, how does he deal with the likes of Mongul, Brainiac, or even Metallo? Clark lost his powers but it's not like the villains who hated him suddenly stopped plotting.

Some sci-fi craziness mixed in with the social commentary of a Golden Age style social crusader? Far as Im concerned that's virtually the perfect Superman!

[Jon Clark]

Yes, between the 'Clark' that he presents to the world and 'Superman', Superman is the closer reflection of his true self for sure. But my point is that he grew up as Clark Kent, and it is as Clark that he takes the decision to a) become the costumed vigilante known as Superman, b) take a day job as a 'mild mannered reporter' Clark Kent.

And here is a perfect illustration of why these Clark/Superman discussions give me a headache.

Bat39 uses "Clark Kent" as the name of the character prior to Action Comics #1. I understand why he does that. It was the only name the character answered to at that point in his life.

I use "Clark Kent" to describe the person he presents to the world in the stories that follow Action Comics #1. At this point no one else is in on the secret so there is no version of the character who interacts with people on panel who know the full person. They either know Superman or Clark (excepting Lois who knows both but as separate people).

So how can we discuss which is the real person, if when I say "Clark Kent" some people understand that as the kid John and Mary raised and others understand that as the reporter at the Star/Planet? We might agree that the young boy in 1920s Smallville is different from the guy who lets a mobster cut in on his date with Lois, but wind up calling the former version by different names.

There is no commonly recognized name for the 7-year old Pre-Crisis Earth-1 lad or the Pre-Action #1 Golden-Age/Earth-2 character. That is what we are all trying to come up with. If he is "Clark Kent" then what do we call the reporter hanging out with Lois and Jimmy? If we call him "Superman/boy" how do we distinguish between him before and after he goes public?

In a lot of cases I think we are all in agreement about who the real persona is, we just keep disagreeing because one group uses one name for that persona and the other group uses the other name.